The Managing Director v. K.A.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.20427, 20432, 20428, 34369, 34376, 34383, 34386, 34390, 34393, 34400, 34403, 34406, 34408, 34414, 34417, 34373, 34377, 34384, 34388, 34391, 34398, 34402, 34404, 34407, 34412, 34415 & 34422 of W.P.No.21223 of 2019 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
Vs.
1. K.A.Ramesh
2. B.Ravi
3. B.J.Ranjaraj
4. N.Mani
5. K.Sivakumar
6. M.Viswalingam
7. H.Babu Karunakaran
8. V.Gurusamy Pandian
9. M.Dinakaran 10.K.Subramanian 11.P.R.Somasundaram 12.S.Krishnan 13.N.Subramani 14.L.Ganesan 1/14
15.S.Sampathykumar 16.N.Namasivayam 17.B.Kumar 18.K.R.Sivakumar 19.K.N.Raju 20.L.Singaran 21.J.Nagarajan 22.T.Arjunan 23.N.Rajkumar 24.M.Ravindran 25.S.Rasultheen 26.R.Saravanan 27.R.Kumar 28.R.Saravanan 29.P.Karikalan 30.U.Thangavel 31.R.Sivaraman 32.V.Pakkirisamy 33.N.Samsudeen 34.M.Sugumaran 35.A.Kaliaperumal 36.R.A.Rajeswaran 37.G.Sridharan 38.P.Chandran 39.B.Jayamraj 40.M.Anandan 41.K.Ramamoorthy 42.K.Manikannan 43.M.Sekar 44.M.Mani 45.K.Jaisankar 46.S.Saseendran 47.B.Ramakrishnan 48.R.Rajendran 49.N.Chandrasekaran 50.C.Chidambaram 51.N.Kannan 52.G.M.Ayyavu 53.P.Ramasamy 2/14
54.N.Senthilkumar 55.K.Raman 56.S.Ashok Kumar 57.A.Palanisamy 58.A.Kumaran 59.R.Senthilkumar 60.M.Selvan 61.G.Jayaraman 62.S.R.Ravi 63.N.Rajendran 64.B.Ramesh 65.K.Mani 66.K.N.Bheman 67.A.Chandran 68.M.Thirumalairaja 69.N.Vaithilingam 70.V.Balamurugan 71.G.Karuppasamy 72.R.Nandakumar 73.T.Mugilan 74.K.Chellamani 75.B.R.Chandran 76.T.Murthy 77.M.Vadivel Murugan 78.K.Pandian 79.S.Senthilkumaran 80.I.Rajan 81.P.Rajapandi 82.P.Paulraj 83.M.Arumugam 84.S.Bakiaraj 85.M.Balakrishnan 86.P.Velmurugan 87.M.Paulsamy 88.T.Murugan 89.R.Subramanian 90.K.Chandrasekaran 91.S.Chidambaram 92.P.Thirupathi 3/14
93.S.Ganesan 94.V.Gomathinathan 95.S.Ravi 96.M.Nandeeswaran 97.M.Jaganathan 98.T.Sathaiah 99.S.Regunathan 100.M.Raj 101.V.Sampathkumaran 102.T.Gowthaman 103.K.Madeswaran 104.R.Mohanasundaram 105.M.Chinnusamy 106.P.Madhiyazhagan 107.P.Krishnamoorthi 108.J.Loordhusamy 109.G.Murugan 110.R.Sivaraman 111.K.Shanmugam 112.M.Mani 113.V.Perumal 114.M.Muthuraman 115.S.Selvarasu 116.A.Manoharan 117.N.Uthrakumar 118.N.Rajkumar 119.S.Palani 120.K.K.Ravishankar 121.P.Selvam 122.S.Ezhilarasan 123.D.Palanisamy 124.B.Belliraj 125.A.Sureshkumar 126.P.Saravanakumar 127.R.Yuvaraj 128.S.Gundan 129.M.Manimaran 130.N.T.Ganesan 131.K.Manoharan 4/14
132.A.Ganesan 133.L.Bojaraj 134.R.Manogaran 135.S.Selvaraj 136.D.Ravikumar 137.K.R.Siva 138.C.Sivakumar 139.S.Unnikrishnan 140.B.Kumar 141.S.Karuppasamy 142.N.Ponnusamy 143.M.Jayapandi 144.J.K.Narayanan 145.S.Halan 146.N.Sivakumar 147.T.Ramachandran 148.V.Nagarajan 149.K.Jayakumar 150.K.Viswanathan 151.P.Pasupathi 152.P.Arjunan 153.R.Krishnasamy 154.V.Thamizharasan 155.S.Arjunan 156.P.Velusamy 157.K.M.Periyasamy 158.A.Karikalan 159.A.Kasiviswanathan 160.V.N.Aruna 161.M.S.Ponnurangam 162.S.Viswanathan 163.C.Kannan 164.M.Kannadasan 165.M.Johnson 166.K.Vasanth Rep. by M/s.Tasmac Oozhiyar Maanila Sammelanam (CITU), 27, Mosque Street, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
... Respondents 5/14
W.P.No.21227 of 2019 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
Vs.
1. Nagappan
2. V.Gopi
3. P.M.Perumal
4. R.Vasu
5. M.Palani
6. J.Ramesh
7. N.Andiyappan
8. D.Koteeswaran
9. P.S.Danapal 10.A.Jayamohan 11.D.Kesavan 12.G.Sadanandan 13.M.Gajendran 14.C.Venkatesan 15.D.Jaigar 16.L.Rajesh 17.R.Venkatesan 18.B.Stanley 19.K.Vinothan 20.M.Murugan 21.D.Prabhu 22.K.Sridhar 23.M.Dilli Baskar 24.S.S.Sambasivam 25.B.M.Sivalingam 26.C.Suresh Rep. by M/s.Tasmac Oozhiyar Maanila Sammelanam (CITU), 27, Mosque Street, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
... Respondents 6/14
W.P.No.21231 of 2019 The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
Vs.
1. S.Venkatesalu
2. G.Thirunavukarasu
3. J.Murugan
4. P.Nandagopal
5. M.A.Saravanan
6. K.Kesavan
7. R.Ravikumar
8. S.Raghu
9. A.Rajkumar 10.M.Charles Suresh Kumar 11.M.Srinivasan 12.J.Deivasigamani 13.A.G.Ravi 14.M.V.Ramadoss 15.K.Chandran 16.M.S.Thanigaivel Rajan 17.T.D.Kumar 18.S.Karthikeyan 19.E.Shanmugam 20.S.Viswanathan 21.K.Balaji 22.V.M.Iyappan 23.R.Arunagiri 24.G.Ravichandran 25.S.Suresh 26.K.N.Sivasankaran 27.A.Manigandan 28.N.E.Harikrishnan 29.V.Sivaraman 7/14
30.T.Kannaiah 31.K.Kesavan 32.A.Srinivasan 33.V.Sankaran 34.M.K.Bakyaraj 35.D.S.Rohini Kumar 36.D.Ramesh 37.E.Selvakumar Rep. by M/s.Tasmac Oozhiyar Maanila Sammelanam (CITU), 27, Mosque Street, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
... Respondents Prayer in W.P.No.21223 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Common order dated 6.2.2019 passed in C.P.No.2418 to 2576 of 2011 and 507, 518, 527, 529, 531 & 537 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same. Prayer in W.P.No.21227 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the common order dated 6.2.2019 passed in C.P.Nos.469 to 473, 483 to 484, 497, 501 to 505, 509, 513, 515, 520, 522, 524, 528, 530, 532 to 533 and 535 to 536 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same.
Prayer in W.P.No.21231 of 2019 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the common order dated 6.2.2019 passed in C.P.Nos.474 to 478, 480 to 482, 485 to 496, 498 to 500, 506, 508, 510 to 512, 514, 516, 517, 519, 521, 523, 525, 526 & 538 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai and quash the same.
8/14
For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjoy Mohan, SC for M/s.K.Sathish Kumar For Respondents : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose ***** COMMON ORDER Since the issue involved in these writ petitions being one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The case of the petitioner Corporation/TASMAC is that, it is a Government Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is a marketing company and its main business is dealing with wholesale and retail sale of Indian made Foreign Liquor. The private respondents/workmen have filed claim petitions under Section 33 (C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the ID Act') before the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai claiming (i) difference amount between the actual pay paid to them and the minimum wages payable to them as fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short 'MW Act') (ii) overtime wages for the work allegedly done by them for more than 8 hours per day and 48 hours per week in weekly days under the provisions of Tamil Nadu 9/14
Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1953 and (iii) double wages for the work allegedly done on National and Festival holidays under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1953 for the periods from January, 2004 to December, 2009. The Labour Court passed the common order dated 06.02.2019 in favour of the workmen. Challenging the same, the petitioner Corporation filed the above writ petitions.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation submitted that, though the claim made by the workmen is not maintainable in law, however, the Labour Court granted relief in favour of the workmen, which is not sustainable. He also submitted that the petitioner Corporation is an establishment under the State Government, which is exempted under Section 4(1)(c) of the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 and hence, the question of paying minimum wages does not arise. If at all the workmen wants to claim minimum wages, they have to approach the authority under Section 20 of the the MW Act. Without approaching the competent authority under the MW Act, filing claim petition before the Labour Court under Section 33 C(2) of the ID Act is not sustainable. However, the Labour Court inadvertently granted relief in favour of the 10/14
workmen, which is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the writ petitions.
4. On the above said contentions, heard the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents/workmen and perused the materials available on record.
5. Admittedly, the workmen filed claim petitions under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act. The claim petitions filed by the workmen is maintainable before the Labour Court only if there is any existing rights between the petitioner Corporation and the workmen. Based on the right, they are entitled to file claim petitions before the Labour Court. In the present case, the petitioner Corporation specifically claimed that, the petitioner Corporation is quasi government owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Government of Tamil Nadu did not pay minimum wages, since they pay wages on different form over and above the MW Act. If there is a difference amount as claimed by the workmen on par with MW Act, they have to workout the remedy before the authority under Section 20 of the MW Act and not before the first respondent/Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act. However, the workmen filed claim petitions under 11/14
Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, which is not sustainable.
6. Further, the petitioner Corporation is owned by the State Government, thereby, if the workmen are entitled for any claim, they have to approach the authority under the MW Act, however, the Labour Court have no jurisdiction to decide the issue in terms of Section 33(C)(2) of the Act. Hence, the claim made by the workmen is not maintainable. Therefore, the impugned common order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be interfered with.
7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the common orders dated 06.02.2019 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Chennai in Claim Petition Nos.2418 to 2576 of 2011 and 469 to 479, 480 to 522, 524 to 533, 535 to 538 of 2014 are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the private respondents/workmen to file appropriate petition before the authority under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such petition is filed, the authority under the Minimum Wages Act is directed to decide the issue within a period of twelve (12) weeks thereafter. Further, liberty is granted to the private respondents/workmen to 12/14
raise claim before the authority under the industrial disputes Act for claiming overtime wages and festival holiday wages under the relevant provisions and the period pending before the Labour Court as well as this Court is excluded for the purpose of limitation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 07.08.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order sp To The III Additional Labour Court, Chennai.
13/14
M.DHANDAPANI, J., sp 07.08.2023 14/14